The reality is that the harm done by fossil fuels on a daily basis to people and wildlife is far greater than what nuclear is going to do.
We're on the cusp of (in?) a transition phase. We are wondering what technology to invest in, and it would be helpful if the technology was renewable and clean. If we invest in nuclear now, it will be incredibly inefficient to switch to solar in the near future, and consequently it wouldn't be likely to happen. Of course, as you were saying, holding out for solar may do more damage in the long term.
Even in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, probably the worst esposures ever to radioactive waste, the number of radiation related deaths was only a small fraction of the number that were killed as a direct result of the blasts.
Sure, but radiation poisoning is a scary, slow, painful death. You can't feel it when it's happening to you and you never know if there is radioactive waste in the area until it's far too late. It may not be dangerous, but it creates a feeling of insecurity, much like terrorism does now.
Teachers sure do whinge a lot about being paid so little. Why don't they just get another job if they don't like teaching?
Probably laziness; the unwillingness to step out of their comfort zone and retrain, as well as doe-eyed student teachers full of ambition and big ideas. Doesn't depress you that the education system may well be held up by laziness and naivety?
Teachers work 12-16 hours a day... yet a "class" day is only 6 hours (after you subtract breaks, locker time, lunch etc..).
Where is that other 6-10 hours going? Consider that...
Obviously the 6-10 hours is far too much time away from education, since you were brought up on that system and seem to think a day contains 22 hours:)
I wasn't not so sure that Nokia was concerned about keeping Hollywood happy
They don't really, but they know that a video media format that hollywood and other entertainment companies don't support could face problems down the track, when it actually comes time to find media to encode in the format.
computers are hardly more than advertising pipelines, and unless you're already savvy, it's hard to suppress an rid the experience of the deluge of ads.
Oh yeah, because we all know that there's no bigger consumer market than destitute Africa.
On how many real life acts-of-terroris-in-the-making have been uncovered using cameras like this?
None. Privacy groups cried foul, and no politician in any position of real power dared to try the technology. I believe there was some question of statistics, and the lack of testing in real-life situations.
Oh god yes. Certain subjects like Apple, Linux, and MS maybe experiencing change currently, but some subjects are particularly polarised. The viewpoint forms a feedback loop, where the only comments to be moderated highly share that viewpoint, and any reasonable "devil's advocates" (as they must be called) are moderated down. When browsing, slashdotters see no opposing viewpoints, and even if they do, the posts sound so aggressively defensive that they completely alienate the reader. The cycle only stops when the viewpoint gets to such extremities that the moderators can't ignore the reason in other posts, and questioning the viewpoint becomes in vogue. That's precisely where the MS groupthink is now.
If the US tried to pass such a law, I'd be against it. It's bad enough trying to legislate morality without trying to legislate it on foreigners. As to whether Yahoo should obey it, I'd say it should, or get out of the US. If China passed a vice-versa law, same deal. It makes perfect sense.
Corporations do not "possess no morality", they are at the very least obligated to respect the laws of the countries they operate in, which is to say, there is a huge amount of "morality" imposed on them.
You misunderstood me. They inherently possess no morality (other than the shareholders), but they can take on the morality imposed by law. They do it in western countries, and they do it in China. I'm saying that I think the companies shouldn't necessarily obey the westerners when they tell them to refuse to obey local laws. It'd make as much sense as imposing Chinese morality on the US (i.e. censoring everything with a fine-tooth comb).
I'm perfectly coherent. I believe it is their right. I also accept that my beliefs are only valid from my perspective. So I'm not really surprised that people don't respect my opinions anyway.
Besides, does it really matter what jargon I used?
Yeah, and since when did a journal entry (by twitter^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Erris no less) about a single, standard editorial from another publication, make front page?
As a relativist, I believe it's Yahoo's right to choose whether or not to cooperate with the Chinese government. I believe it's perfectly fine for them to respect the local customs, even if we consider them repulsive over here. Corporations may be based in different countries, but they are truly international identities. They also possess no morality other than pleasing their shareholders, and I feel they have no obligation to initiate confrontation with different countries, all because they happen to be mimicking your morality where it doesn't (yet) fit. In fact, I would say they have just as much right to start censoring information in the US as they do subverting the Chinese censorship systems.
Of course, as a relativist, no-one respects my opinions. Take 'em or leave 'em.
Well yes, but the contributions are reviewed by the contributor's peers. It's more like saying "Some random guy on the internet once said... and pretty much everyone backed him up". Well, most articles tend to attract those who know a little about it, so it's not exactly random either.
If you truly want the mental disability to stop...... don't infringe on copyrights. Don't do it. Tell anyone and everyone not to do it. While we, as a society, keep infringing on the (MAFIAA|**AA)'s copyrights (whichever is less offensive to you), we will forever be repaying our debt to them we have accumulated as a society. Simply boycotting will just make the situation worse... etc.
See, dear mod, now you can mod me something other than flamebait, because I've removed all but all offensive material from my post. Or perhaps you find the idea that someone of at least moderate intelligence disagrees with you. In which case...
I like watching TV and can't wait for the next series of American Idol. I am part of an experiment of 1,000,000 dumbasses at 1,000,000 computers trying to create a work of genius. Unfortunately, this was all I could come up with.
... don't pirate. Don't do it. Tell anyone and everyone not to do it. While we, as a society, keep stealing the **AA's intellectual property, we will forever remain their bitch. Simply boycotting will just make the situation worse, plus it may cause (more) collateral damage to independent artists, and our culture as a whole.
according to Richard Stallman, the GPL exists only because copyright exists
Well naturally! If there's no copyright, you have absolutely no say in how your works are distributed, or vandalised, or plagiarised, and you certainly can't force people to distribute the source. How could the GPL exist?
Look I do see your point, but it really is irrelevant. RMS may not acknowledge what copyright has done and continues to do for free software, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thanks to copyright and the GPL, whenever you want use a new piece of software, you are (all but completely) guaranteed to have access to the source. It is the best way to keep your system transparent, since you can know every single line of code that graces your machine. Not only that, but the GPLed code manages to enrich itself from community and corporate participation.
Compare that with a world without copyright. I'd predict that free software would be downloaded mostly by a handful of trusted sites, since the internet landscape would be littered with clumsily updated, or even deliberately poisoned binaries/code. The trusted sites would have to deal with low speeds and high maintenance costs, thanks to the high volume of traffic that's usually shifted onto P2P networks. The low speeds would discourage the downloading of the source, making community improvement much more slow. To cover the costs, the site would have to rely on more advertising revenue, with bigger, more intrusive advertising. Meanwhile, inexperienced users, after downloading from an untrustworthy site, would bash free software on forums, associating forever the concept of free software with viruses, trojans, and other malware. Overall usage would slowly deflate, as new users would avoid formerly free software after reading the online testimonies, or having to deal with the slow speeds. Old users would leave the flock for the slow speeds and the advertising. Free software would die a slow and painful death.
Thanks to copyright though, that doesn't have to happen.
Copyright law is a great evil in society, and it's important that children are taught to question it. Windows won't do that.
Oh right. So I take it you aren't a fan of the current management of the OLPC project? Y'know, loading the system with GPLed code? I mean, it is sickeningly evil that they bought into the whole evil copyright thing. Those GPL bastards, insidiously injecting their poisoned code into every little formerly altruistic project! Not like those saintly BSD people, and those people who license with a BSD-style license. Well, so long as they don't put a attribution clause into it.
but if you put that bike on your front lawn, someone may take it. doesn't make it right, but everyone understands the common sense about defending your property
So, I take it that means you're pro-DRM? Or are you anti-locks? Both of them are protected by law, both are different ways to protect different forms of property, and both can (in most circumstances) easily be broken or bypassed by someone with technical knowledge. Does that make breaking and entering (OK, just the breaking bit) unenforceable? Of course not. People still do it; that's the nature of crime deterrents, but it helps keeps the number of thefts down.
Those facts should change your philosophy regarding intellectual and physical property.
These are more the "decision" types, who don't actually have to use their computer for anything important, don't really now much about them, but still feel that they have earned to right to make decisions affecting us all.
Like, for example a bunch of computer geeks panning an OS they've never really tried before?
Oh yeah, I hate Linux. What do you mean distro? No I mean Linux. I hate it. All it has is DOS and it doesn't work with any modern computers. It's impossible to learn how to do the simplest stuff with out a 1000 page manual. It also won't play games or run Office. How screwed up is that?
Well, under law, they can own information. They also can own bits and bytes. In fact, I happen to be the proud owner of some bits and bytes myself. They happen to go well in my computers, for storing my data. Oh wait, you mean abstract artistic concepts that completely transcend mere bits, electromagnetic waves, compression waves, or whatever else they happen to be put in? Well, why didn't you say so in the first place?
I also don't see why physical property is so "real", and intellectual property is comparatively so "fake". It's not like any physical objects inherently belong to you; it's the government and a series of laws that make it belong to you. In reality, you just hold temporary possession of an object. The ownership is purely artificial, just like IP.
Slashdot Mirror
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Give a man a laptop, and he'll get a mighty stomach ache before dying a horrible, painful death.
In fact, I don't know why anyone would think the OLPC is a good idea.
If the US tried to pass such a law, I'd be against it. It's bad enough trying to legislate morality without trying to legislate it on foreigners. As to whether Yahoo should obey it, I'd say it should, or get out of the US. If China passed a vice-versa law, same deal. It makes perfect sense.
I'm perfectly coherent. I believe it is their right. I also accept that my beliefs are only valid from my perspective. So I'm not really surprised that people don't respect my opinions anyway.
Besides, does it really matter what jargon I used?
Yeah, and since when did a journal entry (by twitter^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Erris no less) about a single, standard editorial from another publication, make front page?
As a relativist, I believe it's Yahoo's right to choose whether or not to cooperate with the Chinese government. I believe it's perfectly fine for them to respect the local customs, even if we consider them repulsive over here. Corporations may be based in different countries, but they are truly international identities. They also possess no morality other than pleasing their shareholders, and I feel they have no obligation to initiate confrontation with different countries, all because they happen to be mimicking your morality where it doesn't (yet) fit. In fact, I would say they have just as much right to start censoring information in the US as they do subverting the Chinese censorship systems.
Of course, as a relativist, no-one respects my opinions. Take 'em or leave 'em.
If you truly want the mental disability to stop... ... don't infringe on copyrights. Don't do it. Tell anyone and everyone not to do it. While we, as a society, keep infringing on the (MAFIAA|**AA)'s copyrights (whichever is less offensive to you), we will forever be repaying our debt to them we have accumulated as a society. Simply boycotting will just make the situation worse... etc.
See, dear mod, now you can mod me something other than flamebait, because I've removed all but all offensive material from my post. Or perhaps you find the idea that someone of at least moderate intelligence disagrees with you. In which case...
I like watching TV and can't wait for the next series of American Idol. I am part of an experiment of 1,000,000 dumbasses at 1,000,000 computers trying to create a work of genius. Unfortunately, this was all I could come up with.
... don't pirate. Don't do it. Tell anyone and everyone not to do it. While we, as a society, keep stealing the **AA's intellectual property, we will forever remain their bitch. Simply boycotting will just make the situation worse, plus it may cause (more) collateral damage to independent artists, and our culture as a whole.
Look I do see your point, but it really is irrelevant. RMS may not acknowledge what copyright has done and continues to do for free software, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thanks to copyright and the GPL, whenever you want use a new piece of software, you are (all but completely) guaranteed to have access to the source. It is the best way to keep your system transparent, since you can know every single line of code that graces your machine. Not only that, but the GPLed code manages to enrich itself from community and corporate participation.
Compare that with a world without copyright. I'd predict that free software would be downloaded mostly by a handful of trusted sites, since the internet landscape would be littered with clumsily updated, or even deliberately poisoned binaries/code. The trusted sites would have to deal with low speeds and high maintenance costs, thanks to the high volume of traffic that's usually shifted onto P2P networks. The low speeds would discourage the downloading of the source, making community improvement much more slow. To cover the costs, the site would have to rely on more advertising revenue, with bigger, more intrusive advertising. Meanwhile, inexperienced users, after downloading from an untrustworthy site, would bash free software on forums, associating forever the concept of free software with viruses, trojans, and other malware. Overall usage would slowly deflate, as new users would avoid formerly free software after reading the online testimonies, or having to deal with the slow speeds. Old users would leave the flock for the slow speeds and the advertising. Free software would die a slow and painful death.
Thanks to copyright though, that doesn't have to happen.
Those facts should change your philosophy regarding intellectual and physical property.
Oh yeah, I hate Linux. What do you mean distro? No I mean Linux. I hate it. All it has is DOS and it doesn't work with any modern computers. It's impossible to learn how to do the simplest stuff with out a 1000 page manual. It also won't play games or run Office. How screwed up is that?
Well, under law, they can own information. They also can own bits and bytes. In fact, I happen to be the proud owner of some bits and bytes myself. They happen to go well in my computers, for storing my data. Oh wait, you mean abstract artistic concepts that completely transcend mere bits, electromagnetic waves, compression waves, or whatever else they happen to be put in? Well, why didn't you say so in the first place?
I also don't see why physical property is so "real", and intellectual property is comparatively so "fake". It's not like any physical objects inherently belong to you; it's the government and a series of laws that make it belong to you. In reality, you just hold temporary possession of an object. The ownership is purely artificial, just like IP.
Worst. Porno. Ever.